Digital Life After Death

Who owns your Facebook account after your death? Suppose a teenager or young adult passes away.  Unless his or her parents had already "friended" the deceased, the parents will not have even have access to the deceased photos and other information posted there. Without account log-in information, parents or family will not be able to access the accounts to shut them down or remove offensive comments posted there by "trolls." Suppose the young adult was an artist with photos posted to Instagram or other sites. How can the family get control of their artistic works? What happens to your extensive digital music library? E-mail, social media, billing accounts, etc. - we are a connected society, but have few laws dealing with the nature of digital rights.  Is it "property" that passes by the state laws of intestacy?  To what extent can digital information be bequeathed in a will? Legislatures are starting to pay attention and to attempt to deal with these issues. What do you students think the law should be?

Below is an interesting video. The company featured here, Entrustet, purports to allow you to designate who should get your digital property in the event of your death. Or, to authorize them to delete material before anyone else can see it! However, by taking the position that your digital material is "property" doesn't that mean that only a valid will may designate heirs? The digital designations contemplated here would not meet the will requirements under any state law. It's also interesting how the company clumsily refers to the "dead person" rather than the more genteel "deceased."

Here is a news report on the original issue:

Big Business Wants More Federal Regulation ... of Tort Rights

In the video below, Former Senator and "Law and Order" actor Fred Thompson gives us a primer and description on the virtues of Federalism and then takes a stand against those who are trying to nationalize every little activity.

Do you think that Fred was talking about the industry backed Product Liability Reform bill that would have limited tort recovery by injured victims of defective products that passed Congress and was vetoed by President Clinton?

Or perhaps he was referring to the industry backed "Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act" that would have placed a federal government bar on certain food injury cases This bill has been passed twice by the House of Representatives.

Or maybe Fred was thinking about the industry backed challenge to a California law against slaughtering non-ambulatory animals on the basis that the Federal Meat Inspection Act preempted state regulation.

Or Fred could have had in mind the industry backed claim that Federal law preempted state tort actions by victims of a drug company's failure to warn. Or maybe it was the industry backed claim of federal preemption of state tort claims for injury by medical devices.

The more I think about it, I think that is exactly what Fred must be talking about.

 

SNL Consumer Probe

The images below are links to the famous Saturday Night Live "Consumer Probe" skit. Candace Bergen, playing a consumer reporter interviews Irwin Mainway (DanAkroyd) of Mainway Toys as he hawks his infamous band of dangerous products including, famously, the "Bag o' Glass."

Consumer Reporter: So, you don't feel that this product is dangerous?

Irwin Mainway: No! Look, we put a label on every bag that says, "Kid! Be careful - broken glass!" I mean, we sell a lot of products in the "Bag O'" line.. like Bag O' Glass, Bag O' Nails, Bag O' Bugs, Bag O' Vipers, Bag O' Sulfuric Acid. They're decent toys, you know what I mean?

It's a great way to introduce a product liability segment in  your Legal Environment class.

I can almost hear Emily Litella query: "What's all this fuss about "pro-duck liability?" "Oh, never mind."

Click on the image below to go to the video clip at Yahoo:



Click on the image below to go to the video clip at NBC.com:



Other videos for introducing product liability may be found at earlier posts: here and here.

Law Music Video: "One Day The Lawyers"

In Fred Johnston's song, One Day the Lawyers, the "lawyers" are blamed for seemingly every evil from the black plague to global warming. But he does call for the day that he will see the lawyers in handcuffs where they will ostensibly be prosecuted and brought to justice by . . .  lawyers. So, maybe there is hope.

We Only Lend to Christians?

Below is the text of an e-mail message that I received on my University computer (identifications redacted):

Hi my name is Pastor XXXXX. I am the Senior Pastor at the First XXXXXX Church in XXXXXX, Connecticut. I am also on the board of directors at a company called Christian Mortgage. We are a mortgage refinance company based on christian principles.

  

We can help you refinance your mortgage and get a lower monthly payment.

Your next mortgage payment could be HUNDREDS less per month. We try our best to help ALL Christians. Even if your credit is not the best, or if you have been denied by other lenders, we can still help you!

  

Our foreclosure rate is lower then the average because we only lend to Christians. This helps us get you the lowest monthly mortgage payment. We work with over 100 of the biggest banks and financial institutions. We have them compete against each other to get you the lowest monthly payment.

  

I thought it was important to tell you this because your home is the most important and expensive asset in your life. Your family will have a better life if your mortgage payment is hundreds less every month. To see what your new monthly payment would be, go to our website and fill out the form.

 Here is our website: www.ChristianMortgage.org

God Bless you and your loved ones,

Pastor XXXXXXX

Senior Pastor - First XXXXXXXX Church http://FirstXXXXXXChurch.org

  

Psalm 136:26 Give thanks to the God of heaven, for his steadfast love endures forever.

I'm confused.  

1. What does "only lending to Christians" have to do with there being a lower foreclosure rate and a lower monthly payment, and

2. How does this organization avoid the Equal Credit Opportunity Act? 

Historical Interpretation of the 2d Amendment

The gun-control debate is likely to be in the forefront of the news for some time to come.  In the spirit of "seizing the teachable moment" students can be directed to engage in a number of intellectually challenging and educational debates or thoughtful reflection on the relationship between law and society (using law to address social problems, public policy decision-making and the rule of law); on the legislative process (effect of lobbying, public hearings and comment); and on constitutional interpretation (2d amendment).  I always thought it odd that Justice Scalia, long known as an originalist would deviate from the language of the amendment to consider the intent of the framers in the landmark decision of DC v. Heller.

From a 2008 interview with CBS's Leslie Stahl:

"But what you're saying is, let's try to figure out the mindset of people back 200 years ago? Right?" Stahl asks.

"Well, it isn't the mindset. It's what did the words mean to the people who ratified the Bill of Rights or who ratified the Constitution," Scalia says.

From DC v. Heller:

If, as they believe, the Second Amendment right is no more than the right to keep and use weapons as a member of an organized militia, it does not assure the existence of a “citizens’ militia” as a safeguard against tyranny.

- U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)

In class, I often juxtapose Justice Scalia's quote with that of "Founding Father" and Revolutionary, Samuel Adams:

"Rebellion against a king may be pardoned, or lightly punished, but the man who dares to rebel against the laws of a republic ought to suffer death."

It doesn't seem to me that Adams was terribly interested in protecting the right of citizens to rise up and bear arms against the Republic.  In fact, I had always thought that Shays's rebellion was one of the precipitating events for the calling of the Philadelphia Convention.  When former colonial army captain Daniel Shays led an armed rebellion against the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts in 1786, the federal government was powerless to respond. This deficiency fueled the fires for reconsideration of the Articles of Confederation.

In early 1787 John Jay wrote that the rural disturbances and the inability of the central government to fund troops in response made "the inefficiency of the Federal government [become] more and more manifest."

So, far from the 2d Amendment protecting the possibility of a citizen's militia rising up against the government, I though the 2d Amendment was written to counter against the likelihood of a citizen's militia rising up against the government.

Shouldn't the interpretation of the 2d Amendment rest on actual historical evidence rather than on ideology? Students should take the opportunity to consider that gun control arguments from both the left and the right may be overlooking important historical evidence. Students should be made aware of the explanation of the 2d amendment as described in the blog post linked here. It is a position that I find surprisingly absent from the modern gun control debate, but which is an important part of the understanding of the meaning of law and constitutional interpretation.

Truth, Jury Duty and the American Way!

Below are a couple of kick-a** jury duty videos!  Take that all you YouTubers whining about how you have to get out of jury duty!  Especially that one guy who claims jury duty is unconstitutional.

"If you were on trial, who would you want to decide your fate; a member of the government or a jury of your peers?"

Right on! Power to the people!